Vycamros Chandler's page

So I recently agreed to start GMing Pathfinder Society at a new Comic Store in my area. Since I haven't GMed for PFS too much I expect I'm going to have a lot of GM credits stacking up before I get to play again. I've had a character concept in mind for some time and I'd like some advice on it. I'm planning to make a Halfling Opportunist inspired by Looney Tunes and Animaniacs cartoons whose role is to attempt to avoid or undermine combat. I think the Prestige Class's Exploit Maneuver and Fit In abilities will help to convey the spirit of the character. I also expect to take feats like Well-Prepared and traits like Power of Suggestion.

My initial thought was to start with a Slayer (Bounty Hunter) as the base class because of it's attack bonus, exotic weapon proficiencies, skill points, and the Dirty Trick ability at 2nd level. But I'm not sure where to go with the character beyond that. As a Halfling I know my character won't be too adept at Combat Maneuvers. Also, what should my Ability Scores look like?

This is a character concept I played in a home game once before as a Catfolk with the Black Cat feat inspired by Tex Avery's Bad Luck Blackie cartoon. It was a throw-away game and we only played it once but it really left me wanting to explore the concept again. Anyway, thanks in advance for any advice.

Have you read, like, any of the rules threads?

Where you have twenty, thirty, or even more people than that arguing over a point and they all have to be convinced in order for the thread to die? Sure, I've read them. I don't much care what the people playing at the game next to me think if we can reach a consensus at our game, though. And if we can't, then as I've stated, I think there are bigger issues at play.

Oh, yes, I apologize for misrepresenting Freehold DM in the first sentence. My point is that saying that someone will hold up the game until they win or leave is unlikely because someone is going to give in when they're proven wrong. And if they don't then there are issues outside the game that are interfering with the game.

Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?

It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.

Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)

It's important to remember that if you consistently piss off your players you can easily alienate your player base too. Then you have no players and the game you own isn't going anywhere either. Part of speaking up is making the whole group aware there is a problem. Furthermore, in normal healthy social interactions if I misuse a word or pronounce it incorrectly or have my facts wrong about a topic; I'd rather have the people I'm comfortable around correct me so I know for future reference then have them let me go on looking like an idiot. And if I then insist on continuing to be an idiot I expect to be made aware of that too.

The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.

No. No, absolutely not. The GM is subject to the rules too. If he's changing something that you inherently expect then you have players with mismatched preconceived notions. I can forgive it if the GM is upfront about what will be different during their game, but the GM is subject to the rules like any other player. Throwing a player a curve ball when there's existing rules for something is just going to start a fight. I know this concept of the GM as the final decision maker on the rules has been well-established in this hobby but it's a silly concept. I don't afford a GM any special treatment just because they're the GM. At a table all the players need to be on the same page about what they can and can't do. And if you're arbitrarily making decisions on rules as opposed to figuring out how they really work you're doing everyone and yourself a disservice.

This is a cool topic that I've discussed a little in other threads before. I skimmed through most of the posts because we have fifteen pages of posts here so I apologize if I'm restating something someone has said before.

I prefer low magic campaigns because I feel like they make the game jive with my personal expectation of a good, believable story. High magic presents a situation where characters are able to heal rapidly or reliably alter the parameters of their character. I hate the fact that a Cure Light Wounds Wand is the go-to purchase for everyone in Society Play. I feel like characters have to have believable personalities and, while the Half-Orc Barbarian that ignores pain is an interesting character in one story, it hurts my suspension of disbelief when all the PCs are charging headlong into fights and getting bashed up because they know they'll be healed later. Getting stabbed, cut, or clubbed over the head hurts and I have trouble reconciling a group of adventurers that all have that quality of ignoring self-preservation. I feel that magic healing causes this scenario.

Magic Items are a fun tool to play with. But I feel like they're akin to steroids. When you rely on them all the time then it's not your character doing the work with his natural talent, it's the magic enabling him or carrying him. This can be a fun concept to see in a characters personality at times but I hate that it's universal for all characters and built into the system. Magic Items should be a double-edged sword when you become reliant on them where NPC's should try to steal them or the Big Bad tries to break them when you fight him. But I've never seen an NPC attempt that in the seventeen years I've been playing Pen & Paper Roleplaying Games. I have seen PCs steal magic items from each other, though, in home games and that can be a fun plot point if it resolves well.

Every low magic game I've played in, that I can remember, has addressed these issues in some way and brought the game closer to what I see as an ideal story that I can enjoy and embrace. I've always felt that removing magic as a given makes spellcasters feel more mysterious and makes the party more circumspect in their approach to the game. And that's always been one of my goals as a GM; I want my players to really weigh the costs of their actions as opposed to being able to rapidly recover from an encounter they maybe could have afforded to avoid. I've seen players at games who have stated to me that they expect to win every encounter because they're the hero or they're the good guy. I guess some people enjoy that. But for me it hurts my suspension of disbelief to repeatedly experience the stories of John the Victorious Knight who never made a wrong tactical decision in his life.

We had an issue awhile back in a home game where a player had made a kobold rogue with a blowgun. The question came up about how a kobold could use a blowgun. They're often depicted as reptilian and we couldn't decide if they have lips to properly direct air into a blowgun. Does anyone know how this works in non-humanoids? It was suggested at our table that perhaps they stick the blowgun in one nostril to fire it or manipulate it with their tongue somehow.

I can't think of any archtypes I want to see at the moment, but I suspect we'll see a Kinetiscist that gets a handful Hexes when the book comes out.

So, I'm confused. Do all the Psychic Classes that cast Psychic Spells have access to the Psychic Magic spells like Ego Whip and Tower of Iron Will? Because they aren't listed under the individual Class's Spell Lists.

For my part, I don't play loner characters too much now that I've started playing Society regularly. However, in the home games I played before that I could not trust the players to work together, agree on a common goal, or present a united front in social situations. So when we played, I did a lot of running around behind their backs in game to complete objectives. Since I started playing Society I've found a lot of players who are good at completing objectives as a team, but I rarely agree with their tactics or approach. At least I don't have to babysit a team anymore.

The other half is violence!

This Brawler would love menacing stance. I guess I was unrealistically hoping for a mix of the MoMS and the Brawler(Archetype), instead of Vanilla Monk and Fighter.

Well, I think a lot of the released classes really do feel like they just took the vanilla classes and combined them. I thought the goal was going to be something like the Magus. The Magus is a Fighter/Wizard, but it's style is so very different from what you would actually get if you just made a gestalt Fighter/Wizard as to stand as it's own unique class. I'm not sure I feel like Paizo really hit that with all the new classes.

I haven't had much time to really wade into what's being said in this thread and I'm at work now so I can't really check. I did want to add my two cents on the Brawler though. I was generally disappointed with the class overall. It doesn't feel as if it loses the mysticism of the monk too much. Sure it can't jump ridiculously high or speak to every humanoid, but it still gets very high unarmed damage, unarmed strikes counting as cold iron or adamantine, and this Martial Maneuvers ability. Martial Maneuvers seems like it would be great to just dip a level of Brawler for and run another class with.

I think I came into Brawler expecting a Monk that used weapons, like a barroom brawler or a goon with a set of brass knuckles. Instead it really presents as a Fighter that uses unarmed strikes. I guess I was expecting more of a mundane martial debuffer that gave enemies penalties instead of increasing his own capacity. Sort of like the Brawler archetype for Fighter.

My interpretation of that is you have to be observed to use it. That's why it cites your observers. The concept that I had in mind involved being able to move through an area without concealment by creating a diversion. Maybe my interpretation is incorrect.

Recently I was discussing with a fellow gamer about this trick you see in movies frequently. The hero needs to get from point A to point B and he throws a stone to make noise and distract the guards from looking his direction. Unfortunately Pathfinder doesn't really have rules for this concept. There is no facing in Pathfinder and the "Bluff to Create a Diversion to Hide" rules don't really cover it.

I have an idea I'm going to try out in our next game and I wanted to get some opinions on it. I was thinking of using the "Bluff to Create a Diversion to Hide" rules and adapting them to "Bluff to Create a Diversion to Move while Stealthing". By making a Bluff check to create a diversion you get to specify two adjacent five foot squares as providing concealment. And for every five points you overcome your target's Sense Motive you could specify one more five foot square to provide concealment.

What does everyone think? Is this too powerful of a use of the Bluff skill? Does it make Bluff too much of a no-brainer skill for stealthy characters? Can the idea be tweaked and refined at all? Or is anyone using a better system? Thanks in advance.

I was really interested in trying to make a Read or Die-style Paper Master out of the Scrollmaster and was basically using Movin's ideas. I tried to sell my GM on a Feat for the Class that said instead of using Spell Components all Spells with Spell Components you cast now require an equivalent expenditure in Paper equal to the cost of the original Spell Component. My GM laughed at me and said the Feat would Gimp my Character, but he let me do it anyway. I only played the Character for one Session and we never got any Scrolls and the rest of the Party wouldn't agree to sit still so I could make some. I'm drawn back to the concept every now and then and I'd still like to work it out someday.

Generally, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately what usually happens after I get a neat idea like that is I try to build my next character around it. I've seen pissy GMs (who I no longer play with) who yell, "just fight like a normal person," when I try to get combat creative.

There needs to be a way to do something akin to Dirty Trick at range. I once had an argument with my GM when I wanted to throw a Chakram through a Curtain to cut it and have it fall on an enemy that was under it.

Currently my group is playing a modified E6 game with a bunch of Homebrewed rules. One of our players is upset with our Homebrewed Fatigue System. So I was hoping to get some opinions on the system to improve it or rework the system. So I'll lay out the system below.

A Character has a number or Fatigue Points equal their Constitution Score. Fatigue Points are used to heal Hit Points. Only one Fatigue Point can be expended per round. Whenever a Character does not take an offensive or strenuos action or does not have an offensive action taken against them they automatically spend a Fatigue Point to Heal a number of Hit Points equal to their Character Level. Fatigue Points are automatically spent and cannot be kept if you could Heal. Fatigue Points are Healed at a rate of one point per four hours. Healing Spells no longer Heal Hit Points but instead offer hours of rest equal to the die roll result for the purpose of regaining Fatigue Points. When you are out of Fatigue Points you gain the Fatigued state.

So our Player has been upset about Constitution Damage causing loss of Fatigue as well as the amount of time it takes to get back up to Adventuring Capacity in Fatigue Points. Any thoughts on this system? Does anyone have any suggestions for improving it? Thanks.

So, I apologize for taking so long to post again. I'm really very pleased with the amount of feedback. I'll give some details of how my current groups, I have two, operate.

Group A consists of myself and a high school friend as well as his girlfriend, two ex coworkers, and one of their girlfriends. I rarely GM. Three of us are rules lawyers and together we can usually come up with the solution to any problem that comes up in game. Rarely do we have to consult the rules. So this, I think, is part of the problem. There's no real surprises we can throw at each other anymore because when someone pulls an unofficial creature out we know what they were trying to do and can call them on it. We never use any third party resources. As of now I am on hiatus with that group.

Group B is the same high school friend, another high school friend, and his close friend. This is a much more loose group. We have some players who can't recite rules and everyone takes a turn GMing. I'm still gaming with them currently. Recently we discussed running E6 and I was really excited to try it. Unfortunately it was voted down by the group.

I think I'm most inclined to agree with Anomander about the situation. I don't like changing the rules. In my opinion the rules are written in such a way as maximize enjoyment for everyone that plays the game by offering them an equal playing field. My personal belief system when it comes to gaming is that fun is second to fairness and the rules are meant to make things as fair as possible within the system. This is generally why we don't use third party resources or house rules very often.

I'm going to attempt to look for another group in my area and try to play with all three groups from time to time. I'm also going to look into some of the other games suggested. Thanks again to everyone who posted.

I've been looking around for threads about this and I haven't found any that fit. I'm curious to hear some opinions.

I've been generally dissatisfied with the approach my group takes to playing table-top games. I feel like our group has fallen into the "we can't die" mentality. I've tried discussing this individually with players and with the group as a whole. I've also taken the time to discuss this with other gamers outside my group that I'm familiar with. I feel like the self-assured attitude of the PCs is hurting my suspension of disbelief. Every puzzle we encounter we can overcome. Every enemy we fight we can defeat by charging it. And every NPC we encounter can be diplomanced into liking us. I feel like the PCs are super heroes.

I've had an instance of holding a knife to an NPC's throat to threaten him and a player wigged out because it would only deal 1d4 damage and the threatened character clearly had way more hit points than that.

I've seen a party encounter a Digester in a cavern and get sprayed with acid first turn then decide to ignore it because it rolled low and was no longer a real threat.

I've seen an entire tavern draw guns on a PC and he continued to insult the bar tender because they were all "low level NPCs."

I'm disillusioned with the Superman approach to encounters. It seems very unrealistic to me that a person would throw themselves into the blades of five to ten enemies without fear of death. I'm tired of PCs who are more than willing to free dive off a cliff with full confidence that the Wizard's magic will save them. I don't feel like there are enough repercussions to the player's choices. I recently discussed completely removing magical healing from a campaign to try to convince the players to take a more tactical approach to combat. It didn't go over well.

Does anyone else feel this way about gaming? Am I playing the wrong games? I mean, I understand that not everyone is going to take issue with these concepts. I don't feel like our group lacks in roleplay skill either. Some of these situations can be resolved with good roleplay. But I feel like there is a disconnect in my group between what can be achieved through roleplay and what is governed by numbers. I feel like the mortality of the group is never emphasized. We never face challenges that are too hard for us. It's like we're never afraid of anything.

I had assumed the purpose of the other Discovery that Saboteur's have access to, Complex Bomb, was designed for use with Bore Bomb and Delayed Bomb. In this way you're setting something like a timed charge. If you're setting multiple charges this way it may be more doable to utilize Bore Bomb as it's presented. You sure are expended a lot of bombs that way though.

I felt the flavor of this class was the character that can destroy large obstacles. The character that sneaks into enemy territory and destroys the castle wall for the rear infiltration force that is going to lead a surprise attack. I could be wrong, I may be thinking on too large a scale. But it seems to me you'll never be able to bring that wall down when you consider,

- A "Good Wooden Door" has a Hardness of 5 and 15 Hit Points

- A "Masonry Wall (1 ft. thick)" has a Hardness of 8 and 90 Hit Points

- "Hewn Stone (3 ft. thick)" has a Hardness of 8 and 540 Hit Points

Those numbers are from the Pathfinder SRD. As it stands, a Saboteur can't blow a 5' wide and 5' deep hole in a Good Wooden Door until around 12th or 13th level. If that's the way it was meant then my interpretation of the class is horribly wrong and I apologize, but that just doesn't feel right to me.

This is a really clever idea. I know that I struggle not reading things. If I'm watching an anime with both English dubbing and subtitles I rarely can keep from reading the subtitles. But in the heat of battle against someone who is actively trying to slay you I'm not sure you'd be so inclined to start reading their shield. It feels really flavorful but I agree with Hjolmaer that it wouldn't get read often.

I can envision a situation, though, with two standing armies face-to-face on a battlefield about to clash and one soldier happens to read the opposing soldier's shield causing the spell to activate.

Bore Bomb: When the saboteur creates a bomb, he may choose to make it a bore bomb. If a bore bomb strikes a wall, gate, siege engine, or similar large, solid, inanimate structure, it ignores half the target's hardness and deals 1 point of damage per saboteur level. If a bore bomb reduces an inanimate target to half its hit points or fewer, it blows a hole 5 feet wide and 5 feet deep in the target.

Am I interpreting correctly that Bore Bombs only do one damage per Alchemist level? This seems really underpowered. Do Bore Bombs splash? Does the Alchemist get to add Int to damage with the Bore Bomb? Is there some way to get more damage out of a Bore Bomb so as to be able to overcome the remaining half Hardness at an earlier level?

I don't know if this character has been proposed before. I'm sure someone has thought of it. I like my Vampire so far but I'm looking for some advice on where to go with my build. I don't know if there's an accepted format for displaying a character but hopefully this will do.

Race: Dhampir
Class: Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager)2 / Sorcerer (Undead [Sanguine Wildblooded]) 6
Abilities: Str. 16 Dex. 14 Con. 12 Int. 14 Wis. 10 Chr. 17 (That's with 20 point point buy)
Hit Points: 58
BAB: +5
Traits: Magical Knack for Sorcerer, and Conspiracy Hunter for Stealth
Feats: Power Attack, Arcane Strike, Furious Focus, Godless Healing

I'm using a (cliche) Scythe and trying to make the character as much of a melee combatant as possible. The character has so far been very hard to kill because he can heal himself fairly easily. My main strategy has been to make only one attack each round with Furious Focus since I'm primarily a Sorcerer. Eventually I was going to get Vital Strike to increase damage.

Right now I'm looking at maybe trying to get either Vital Strike, Extra Rage, or Extra Rage Power next level. To get Vital Strike I have to take a level of Barbarian for the Attack Bonus and I wasn't originally planning on taking any more than two levels of Barbarian. So, comments? Are there any useful feats I'm overlooking? Any advice is appreciated. Also of note is that our GM has stated the max level for our campaign is Eleventh. Thanks.

I don't remember the exact circumstances anymore but this came up when we were playing 3.5 edition D&D:

GM: "Okay, you guys wake up the next morning. You set about your morning routine. One of you makes breakfast and you all eat your fill."

Me: "My god! Why would we do that? What are we going to do without Phil?!"

At a later date we briefly had a player named Phil and he was burdened with being the brunt of that joke repeatedly.

I often play loner PCs and my group has labeled me, the player, as a very self-centered player. I think the reason I play the way I do is that I generally do not trust the other players. I try not to be confrontational and I'm usually a tag along in many sessions.

When I first started playing D&D back in 2nd Edition I was one of two new players and we both decided to make halfling thieves. Roughly twenty minutes into that session the other player back stabbed my character and I was forced to start over. I've always felt my characters are very mortal since then and I have a hard time adopting the hero mentality that a lot of players in my party have. They seem to think they can't die or the GM isn't going to kill them. Usually they're right, but I have developed a different play style than that. I go along with the party and I let them do their thing and when I start to have serious doubts that they're going to succeed I will flee. I try to maneuver my character into a position where I no longer feel I'm in immediate danger and then if I have the resources to continue helping the party I will. That may seem selfish but I tend to feel like every player has to take care of themselves. I design my characters almost to the extreme of being able to attempt solo play. There actually have been a few situations where the party was so wrapped up in arguing that I left and resolved a problem while they were catching up to me.

I don't dislike my party. Everyone that plays in my group is a friend and I enjoy helping them when I can. But in a situation where I feel like I would be risking my life for them I'm going to see to it that my character survives however possible. I think people have to learn by making their own mistakes. But that doesn't mean that I have to make their mistakes with them.

So we are currently in combat with an ooze. A Death Trap Ooze has caught and Grappled my character. I, as an Archaeologist Bard, was curious to know if I could use Summon Monster I to summon a Pony and have it Bull Rush me out of the Ooze. I looked briefly for rules about Bull Rushing a Grapple but I'm currently in the combat. Appreciate any input.